Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Highest Grossing Movies in Kannada[edit]

Respected Sir, According to recent news statement published in International Business Times, Kirik Party has grossed 45 crores and is nearing to 50 crores. I request you to kindly update the page with correct information. Necessary link related to news statement has been attached with this request.

Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinayakwiki (talkcontribs) 03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Respected sir, According to Kannada box office and several news articles recently hebbuli movie has crossed the gross of 50 crores so I would like u to edit the info Suraj Sudeep (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You will need to provide solid references. Before you respond, see WP:RS, and more specifically, WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources to get a better idea for what sources are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sir i am requesting u just pluck off raajakumara which has no official declarations on collection but u still included it please understand we ade getting betrayed
Suraj Sudeep (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Suraj Sudeep: I don't know what you mean by "official declarations", since 1) we don't use primary sources as definitive sources of controversial information like finances, since a director/producer/actor/distrubutor/etc. would have every reason to inflate their "official" values and 2) There is no such thing as "official" film financial data in Indian cinema. Everything is an estimate. So whatever point you are trying to make is unclear, and the lack of references doesn't shed a whole lot of light on the matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sir you have changed the collection of Kannada movie maanikya but in the Wikipedia page of the movie maanikya it is stated with source that it has earned 43.5 crores so I would like you to change the same accordingly Suraj Sudeep (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Suraj Sudeep: - I believe you're referring to this edit, which was made by user Tevar shaa, not by me. To answer your question, when we consider a film's gross, we're talking only about money made at the box office. We're not interested in secondary revenue streams like satellite rights sales, music rights sales, etc. The 43.5 crore value at Maanikya was erroneously including these values and has been fixed in this edit. According to Indiaglitz, the film grossed about 35 crore rupees. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok sir then u have the proof for hebbuli to cross 50 crores but why haven't u updated yet Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of and don't see it as an approved source at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. However, if the content is being derived from Filmibeat, which the logo on the page would seem to suggest, I'd be averse to using this source as a reference, since Filmibeat is expressly indicated as an unreliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir i still have another proof for hebbuli crossing 50 crores Suraj Sudeep (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello bro last year blockbuster mukunda murari has completed a gross of 50 crores as stated in your wikipedia page so please change Suraj Sudeep (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Suraj Sudeep: You mean the unexplained, unsourced addition that was made in this edit? I don't think so. Please bring reliable sources to the talk page if you want other editors to consider changes. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for examples of what are and are not suitable for inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the proof the famous box office tracker has told that hebbuli has collected 100crores Suraj Sudeep (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Suraj Sudeep: When the information is released by a reliable mainstream publication, then the content may be changed. I don't know who this person is or what makes him an authority on Indian film finances. For all I know, he could be a shill for producers and promoters. I've never heard of Cinema Pesalam. Please familiarise yourself with our reliable sources guidelines and look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for examples of suitable and unsuitable sources. You need to start bringing quality references to talks page and articles, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) The above link shows that hebbuli has completed 100 crores Suraj Sudeep (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello freaking page editor i have provided u all the major sources og tthe collection of 100 crores by hebbuli but u have not edited it sk may i have a complaint registered against u or shall i report u to Wikipedia as a senseless editor Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC) This is the 2nd linl for 100 crore collection by hebbuli Suraj Sudeep (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing Indian franchise and film series[edit]

@Taniya94: Your pet project, the Highest grossing Indian franchise and film series table you created, has been flagged for cleanup since November.

  1. Is there a reason why we're using US dollars in the table when everything else in this article is in Rupees? Previous discussions at the Indian cinema task force suggest the vocal community doesn't find much value in focusing on US dollars.
  2. The "highest-grossing film" column should probably become "highest-grossing film in franchise" just for clarity
  3. The figures in parentheticals are odd, especially with the references wedged inside the parens. Maybe another column for the references would be a better way to present this data?

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it would be much more sensible if the box office figures were in Rupees as there is always a constant fluctuation of the USD vs INR value. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Taniya94: and @Cyphoidbomb: - The figures were not in dollars but in INR. However they were using the million form of numbering instead of the crore form. In the Indian numbering system, 1 crore = 10 million and I have modified the list accordingly. References are something that I or probably anybody else apart from Taniya94 cannot add, as these numbers are currently being accepted in good faith because of her standing. I would therefore urge Taniya94 to add a column for references for all these movies for the sake of transparency. Jupitus Smart 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:, it would be nice if you could add a column for references. I tried my hand at making a column but seem to be technically inept at that. Probably that is the reason why Taniya94 could not add the column as well.Jupitus Smart 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Highest opening movies in india[edit]

Bahubali- conclusion- 145cr Pasyavula gopi (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pasyavula gopi: Unsourced declarations are not terribly helpful. Please provide a reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger of some articles[edit]

There has been a proposal to merge List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets (since July 2016) and List of highest-grossing Telugu films (since August 2016). It's been almost a year and I propose that someone merge it soon. If there was an agreement earlier about not merging the above mentioned articles into this one then the templates should have been removed. I also would like to propose the merger of the article List of highest domestic nett collection of Hindi films into this one (or a deletion of that article) since it's very poorly written and doesn't serve much of a purpose. - Jayadevp13 13:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of highest grossing movies[edit]

I would like to propose that a new section be included with the name "Timeline of highest-grossing films" just like in the article List of highest-grossing films. It would be very informative. It can be started with films since the year 1990 then be expanded to include the earlier films. - Jayadevp13 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Also what about films like Mughal-e-Azam ? In that case ]]Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation]] will make sense Mrkks (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Mrkks
@Mrkks: The bulk of the financials for Indian films are based on guesses, rumours, unverified claims, and lies. Establishing definitively that a film from 1960 is one of the highest-grossing films in Indian cinema (adjusted for inflation) would be a monumental feat, and one based almost entirely on conjecture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jayadevp13: I understand what you are going for with the timeline of highest-grossing movies, but I have some questions/notes:
  • How does a reader verify that Hum Aapke held the #1 spot from 1994 to 2001? While there are references to indicate the individual gross values, where are the references that say "Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! was the highest-grossing Indian film of all time until it was overtaken by Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham in 2001." That specific verified claim is crucial to the list being meaningful in any way, because without those assertions, all there is in the table are a series of meaningless numbers, and we're asking readers to assume that the lack of any contrary information equates to an indisputable fact.
  • Does Box Office India even chart films that aren't in Hindi? Where is Dasavathaaram in this BOI box breakdown for 2008?
  • If Dasavathaaram is missing from that BOI list, how does a reader know that in all the other years of BOI charts, no Tamil, Telugu, or Malayalam film ever charted as #1? Again, we're asking readers to assume that a lack of contrary information equates to a factual assertion.
  • An example taken from your inspiration List of highest-grossing films#Timeline of highest-grossing films uses this reference, which says explicitly: "[Jurassic Park grossed] $705 million within 115 days of its initial theatrical release, making it the all-time international box office champ. The previous record holder was Spielberg's own "E.T." (USA/1982), which eventually grossed $701 million." That is a clear declarative statement that doesn't leave much room for confusion. It tells us what the previous record was, and it tells us what the new record was. That is the level of clarity required for this list.
There is a significant lack of information in the Indian version of that table, and these issues would have to be fixed if there's any hope of keeping that list. I also consider this a supremely difficult task, given the lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, as well as the media's tendency to only be interested in films produced in their own language. I have no idea how this can be accomplished. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thank You for taking your time to research about it and write all those points.
  • With regard to your first point, what I thought of (at the time of editing the article) was that people could compare the table with the Highest-grossing films by year table and see. To elaborate what I mean, the highest-grossing film of 1994 Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! had grossed 127.96 crore and the highest-grossing film of 2001, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham had grossed around 135.53 crore. Between them all the movies had grossed less than the earnings of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! in 1994. My belief was that people can infer this from the Highest-grossing films by year list.
  • No, the website Box Office India doesn't track the earnings of movies which are not in Hindi. You can also see that from the absence of Baahubali: The Beginning from this Top Worldwide Grossers 2015 list. Now this is problem. How to show in the Highest-grossing films by year table that a particular year's highest grossing movie was not in Hindi.
  • With regard to your fourth point, finding that kind of references will be very tough especially since there is a lack of centralised auditing of financial figures, just like you told. That was the reason I took the Highest-grossing films by year table as a reference to compare and make a new table (don't know if Wikipedia policies allow it). If it is allowed then we can mention at the start of the section that this table is derived using data from the previous table. I hope you understand what I am trying to convey here.
What do you suggest I should do now? Should I (or you) remove the list which I created until definite sources can be established? Might be possible for movies which released after 2009 (for example 3 idiots). I highly doubt that it is possible for movies which were released earlier. With regards. - Jayadevp13 03:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jayadevp13: and @Cyphoidbomb: I personally think that this is a WP:LISTCRUFT which does not enlighten anybody any more than the list of Highest-grossing films by year that is just above. I respect your good intentions Jayadevp13, but as I said, the list does not have much significance as of date. If you can at least add more details - say take back the timeline to 1960, it will probably merit remaining. I am removing the forked list for now. Feel free to revert with a reason. Jupitus Smart 06:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jayadevp13: I think it was a solid, constructive effort, but we just don't have the sourcing yet to justify its inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yajamana gross[edit]

It is highly unlikely that Yajamana actually grossed 42 crores (somebody even removed the citation that was present for the same). The earlier reference was to some book, and the grammar in the page in which the dubious figure was mentioned, makes me apprehensive about the reliability of the book. No other source mentions the number and it should probably be removed from the Highest Kannada movies list. Jupitus Smart 15:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: I've been experiencing a great deal of trouble from Kannada film values lately... Looks like the reference was removed here by Sitush, who cited WP:MIRROR as a rationale. Sitush, any chance you could expound a bit? How do you know Wikipedia was the source of that content? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Stuff published by Diamond Pocket Books is often very dodgy. The specific instance you mention was briefly referred to in this thread and I did some spot checks at the time that seemed to confirm the book's author was taking info from Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sitush: Thanks for the explanation, esteemed colleague. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That solves that. Jupitus Smart 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bahubali - issue with the posted Language[edit]

Please understand that Bahubali is a telugu film , not tamil. Veda chaitanya (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the archives discussions of this talk page. If memory serves, the film was shot in both languages (not dubbed into one as is common practice). We treat the film as both Tamil and Telugu. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be a "Telugu" film or "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi", but why it is showcased as "Telegu & Tamil" film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no ampersand (&) between Telugu and Tamil in the article, so your quotation is not representative of what the article says. "Telugu,Tamil and Hindi" would not be appropriate, since the movie was not filmed in Hindi. It was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

With the above explanation and references that I found later, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier in the initial post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Chaar Sahibzaade: Rise of Banda Singh Bahadur figures[edit]

The movie is currently 3rd in the Punjabi list. It has 4 references, three of which are from reliable sources which however does not mention the given numbers. The 4th reference is from a blog site called dekhnews [1] which is the source for the number. I don't think the site can be considered reliable. Should the movie be removed from the list. Jupitus Smart 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Baahubali 2:the conclusion hindi[edit]

Baahubali 2 movie has been released in hindi also add that in the language out of 625 cr gross worldwide hindi has grossed 300 cr my request is that many people trust wikipedia so please update proper information source you can find in the collection reference itselfV1234robot (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done - @V1234robot: It's unclear what you are asking to be changed, and since you haven't provide a reference of any sort, that makes interpreting your request somewhat difficult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Baahubali 2 Tuesday 5th Day Box Office Collection, Grossed 700crore At Worldwide Markets". BollywoodMozo. 3 May 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V1234robot (talkcontribs)
@V1234robot: "BollywoodMozo", whatever that is, is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a sample of good and bad sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

Bahubali and bahubali 2 movies are telugu movies and dubbed into tamil, hindi and malayalam. I can see it is mentioned as Telugu and Tamil whereas kabali as only tamil. Venkisree (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The two cinematic parts of Bahubali were simultaneously shot in both Telugu and Tamil languages. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Hebbuli Kannada Movie to be in top grossing kannada movie with 42 crores[edit]

Hebbuli Kannada Movie to be in top grossing kannada movie with 42 crores per 13 days collection report. [1] Vinaybang31 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Not done - @Vinaybang31: "Blastingnews" is not a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of ones that are and are not useful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a reliable source for hebbuli completing 100crores Suraj Sudeep (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Suraj Sudeep: What exactly makes this source reliable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

For Bahubali Movies, Hindi language also need to be included. Manyugarg (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Manyugarg: Why? Hindi is a dub, not the original language of production. According to sources, the film was shot in Telugu and Tamil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Then why not add more detail which shows this income is because of Dub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyugarg (talkcontribs) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Manyugarg: I don't understand what you're asking. The gross values presumably indicate worldwide gross. This means the box office values of all theatrical releases worldwide, including dubbed releases. This is the default assumption that most people should have about what "worldwide gross" means. At List of highest-grossing films there is no special column indicating how much money Captain America: Civil War made from its Cantonese dub, but I guarantee that value is factored into the $1,153,304,495 figure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

Baahubali: The conclusion is listed as an bilingual Telugu and Tamil movie. Please note it is only dubbed into Tamil and other languages and it is an original Telugu movie.

So please edit the Title to Baahubali: The conclusion Jaswanthyarlagadda (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Jaswanthyarlagadda: According to sources, the film was shot in both Telugu and Tamil, not dubbed in Tamil. You would need to bring reliable sources that contradict this position. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a broad list of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Baahubali collections are not correctly mentioned in Telugu and Tamil[edit]

Both Bahubali 1 and 2 collections are not correctly mentioned in both Telugu and Tamil lists. Baahubali 2 collections are listed in Hindi list even though it is a dubbed version. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As of this version of the article, I don't see Baahubali 2 in the Hindi list, so maybe this was already fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017[edit]

Bahubali: The Conclusion is a telugu movie(dubbed into tamil,hindi, malayalam) (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you're requesting that we indicate that Tamil is a dub, that's not consistent with reports that the film was shot in Tamil, not dubbed. If that thought is incorrect, you'll need to bring references to prove that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Telugu gross collections error?[edit]

The collections for Tollywood is out of order and needs to be fixed. Order should go like this: 1. Bahubali 2 2. Bahubali 1 3. Khaidi 150 4. Srimanthudu 5. Magadheera (+dubbing) 6. Janata Garage 7. Sarainodu 8. Attharintiki Daredi 9. Gabbar Singh 10. Eega

SourinSP (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@SourinSP: Not done This source says Srimanthudu grossed 200 crore worldwide, which would be more than the 164 crore worldwide asserted by this source to Khaidi 150. So it's unclear why we'd flip the positions of those. If you want to see anything changed, you're going to have to bring references and strong arguments for why the current order is not accurate. Simply providing a list and asking us to blindly adhere to it isn't going to work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if Srimanthudu is in fact higher that Khaidi 150, Gabbar Singh shouldn't even be on this list. Looking at this: source
It made less than Srimanthudu let alone Sarainodu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourinSP ::(talkcontribs) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@SourinSP: That reference is describing distributor share figures, not gross. This source puts the gross at 150 crore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This contradicts some of your claims, though: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourinSP (talkcontribs) 01:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't made any claims. I've only double-checked the sources that are already in the article. Don't know what to tell you. This is an inherent problem with Indian film financials--there are no absolute figures. Everything's a guess. Everything's subject to exaggeration. I'm sure that for every figure in the article, there's another figure that's several crore higher or several crore lower. Do we disregard an otherwise reliable source simply because another otherwise reliable source has a figure that's closer to what we personally wish it to be? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Multiple sources exist for Srimathudu's 200 crore gross figures - [2] (Catch News - not a reliable source, though accepted as one here), [3] (NDTV), [4] (Times of India) and the Business Standard reference mentioned above. Just because IBT does not think so, I don't think the figures should be brought down. And anyway, our list does not match with the list of Top Telugu movies provided by IBT, making it futile to match figures.Jupitus Smart 05:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Khaidi n.o 150 collected more than Srimanthudu as per — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeev4puli (talkcontribs) 04:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017[edit]


Bahubali 2:The conclusion is a bilingual movie(made in both telugu and tamil) and it was dubbed in other indian languages.But in the list of highest grossing movies,I could see the language section to have Malayalam and Hindi added as well.It is a wrong information.It needs to be changed.

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraveenKumarMurugaiah (talkcontribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 07:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^

With the references given below, I now accept Bahubali as a "Telugu and Tamil" movie (as all other languages are dubbed versions only like Hindi, Malayalam, English and Korean. My apologies for demanding this movie as Hindi movie earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017[edit]

Technically, Dangal has booked 9000 something screens in China so its still running. Ref- (Screen Info from NDTV). So put Dangal in that greeny color. (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done I believe someone has already taken care of this. I see Dangal in green. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017[edit]

in the list of highest grossers of malayalam film,movie "the great father" is missing,which has collected 50 cr so far . please add in that list" 1. 2. 3. film producer's official page stating the collection of 50 crores 4. and link of kbo updates which tracks malayalam movie collection reports 5.

Anupmenon0007 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER 09:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
We wouldn't use producer claims per WP:PRIMARY, as a producer/director/actor/distributor would have every reason to exaggerate. Especially given the competition between Mammootty and Mohanlal. No indication qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS/WP:UGC. Who runs it? Who's the editor-in-chief? What are there qualifications? Demonstrate they have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can this be used as a reliable source?, References from this source has been included in many similar Wikipedia pages. Ananth sk (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ananth sk: Read the 2nd line in the reference and then read what Cyphoidbomb has mentioned above. You will get your answer. Jupitus Smart 04:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Any chance you could please clarify this? Specifically which phrasing is problematic? Google Translate is giving me a horrible translation of the article, so I'm unable to tell. The first paragraph says "Mammootty will open another 50 crore club in Malayalam. The movie is about 50 Crores. The record for the movie has been released...." Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: - The line by line translation of the first paragraph - "Mammootty makes his way into Malayalam's 50 crore club. The Great Father is surging in theatres after breaching the 50 crore mark. The collection figures were released by the producers of the movie.". The last line of the news also re-iterates the fact that the numbers were from the producers - "The collection figures were released by the producers of the movie, August Cinemas". Jupitus Smart 14:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Thanks for that. Google Translate didn't make any of that clear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Then who is supposed to reveal the collection if it is not producers of the movie?? Then how cacth news become a reliable source than manorama leading media in Kerala. Who knows catch news in Kerala?? . vathanlal (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rank grouping[edit]

In these edits, Betty Logan was kind enough to make some table formatting changes that group various ranks based on a film's gross. Example:

Rank Movie Year Director Studio(s) Worldwide gross
1 Mungaru Male 2006 Yogaraj Bhat E. K. Entertainers 50 crore (US$7.8 million)–75 crore (US$12 million)
2 * Kirik Party 2016 Rishab Shetty Paramvah Studios 50 crore (US$7.8 million)
3 Mr. and Mrs. Ramachari 2014 Santhosh Ananddram Jayanna Combines 50 crore (US$7.8 million)
4 * Raajakumara 2017 Santhosh Ananddram Hombale Productions 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
5 Doddmane Hudga 2016 Duniya Soori Ajay Pictures 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
6 Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna 2012 Naganna Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
7 Uppi 2 2015 Upendra Upendra Productions 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
8 Kotigobba 2 2016 K. S. Ravikumar Rambabu Productions 35 crore (US$5.4 million)–38 crore (US$5.9 million)
Rank Movie Year Director Studio(s) Worldwide gross
1 Mungaru Male 2006 Yogaraj Bhat E. K. Entertainers 50 crore (US$7.8 million)–75 crore (US$12 million)
2 * Kirik Party 2016 Rishab Shetty Paramvah Studios 50 crore (US$7.8 million)
Mr. and Mrs. Ramachari 2014 Santhosh Ananddram Jayanna Combines 50 crore (US$7.8 million)
4 * Raajakumara 2017 Santhosh Ananddram Hombale Productions 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
Doddmane Hudga 2016 Duniya Soori Ajay Pictures 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna 2012 Naganna Sri Sangolli Rayanna Cine Combines 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
Uppi 2 2015 Upendra Upendra Productions 40 crore (US$6.2 million)
8 Kotigobba 2 2016 K. S. Ravikumar Rambabu Productions 35 crore (US$5.4 million)–38 crore (US$5.9 million)

So why is this better? Simple: Raajakumara, Doddmane Hudga, Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna and Uppi 2 all grossed 40 crore. So it would be completely arbitrary for us to decide that Raajakumara is #4 when Uppi 2 could also be considered #4. By manipulating a film's placement in the old system, we are effectively giving preferential treatment to Raajakumara, by suggesting that it grossed more, and thus needs to be ranked higher. This totally violates WP:NPOV. What the new system tells readers, is that there were four films that filled the #4, #5, #6 and #7 spots. They just all happened to gross the same. Note also that this change was discussed here in February 2017, and so consensus was established for the change. If you object to the changes, your recourse is to seek a new consensus through discussion, not to revert the changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this works, though fans of Raajkumara will still try and have their movie as the first among equals. I feel that if the figures are equal, the older movie should be the first among equals, because its easier to gross huge numbers nowadays compared to before thanks to inflation and higher ticker prices. Jupitus Smart 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: I think the films should be arranged alphabetically. This seems the most neutral way to deal with this, and to prevent disruption, but I do understand the merits of your argument. I'll have to think about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing Malayalam movies[edit]

Malayalam Nov es Abi rockzz (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Abi rockzz: What? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Abbas: Why did you remove Great father from the list @cyphoidbomb? Just search August cinema in Facebook , and they have posted on their fb page that the movie crossed well over fifty crore mark. You are still confused on the evidence people given and still questioning on the evidence we give for the updation of the list.just another stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas.j63 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Abbas.j63: 1) Watch the personal attacks. 2) I'm not the one who's confused--I'm well versed on Wikipedia guidelines. We don't use primary sources (Directors/actors/producers/distributors/etc.) for controversial claims like a film's finances, because big surprise: these people have every reason to lie. Inflated figures make directors and actors and producers look more attractive. An actor who can brag about his film breaking a financial record is likely to get more work. Same with a director. Not to mention that film companies often inflate figures (Kabali is a prime example) to make the film more attractive to potential viewers, enticing them to be a part of the blockbuster spectacle. This is particularly relevant given the longstanding rivalry between Mammootty and Mohanlal. The producers posting an inflated number makes the film more attractive to Mammootty fans. So it should be fairly obvious why we can't take the producer's claims at face value. We care what reliable published sources that are independent of the subject have to say. And thankfully, Wikipedia has no deadline. We're not in any hurry to post improperly verified financial figures. Feel free to look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for an example of the types of references that are considered reliable, along with ones that are not. (List is not all-inclusive. It's a rough list.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

where is great father ??it has grossed over 50cr and officially confirmed.If you are arguing that the confirmation by producer cant be included in wikipedia then how could ezra and munthiri vallikal thalirkumbol came to this list? their reference given is manorama online news(pls check). If so great father 50cr news has also came in manorama online,pls check ( so pls try to add the great father to this list and dont do such a partiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanvsjocker (talkcontribs) 17:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017[edit]

Thyagu777 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Highes Grossing Kannada Movies[edit]

Hello Dear,

I see there is no update for this section of Highest grossing Kannada movies for over a month now. From the sources available on inernet, i see the currently running Movie Raajakumar has dose business in the 75-80 Cr. Also i am sure there is increase in the earnings of Kirik Party, which is still running in the theatres. One of souces i can refer to is IMDB, on which it shows Raajakumara has over taken Mungaaru Male by a distance. I am keen to see the wiki too updated. Could you please do the honours.

Thanks so much!!

Warm Regards Raj V N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajdbangy (talkcontribs) 08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rajdbangy: Per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It is user-contributed. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general list of the types of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017[edit]

Please add Chinese/Mandarin in languages under Dangal top grossing movies (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Language column indicates the language the film was shot in, not dubs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017[edit]

in highest malayalam movie grossers, where is " THE GREAT FATHER" which crossed 50 crore box office. here is the link of malayala manorama news channel, which reported this collection some removed it intentionally.please check (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

See discussion below. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Some one removed an entry from the wiki article[edit]

in the top grossers of malayalam movie list, there was the movie" The Great Father " which crossed 50 crore mark, here is the link of official reputed news channel

the above link is of indias reputed news channel malayala manorama..pls edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupmenon0007 (talkcontribs) 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

See discussion below. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017[edit]


Here is the collection details.

Kerala – 33.1 Crore (30 days )

GCC – 19.05 Crore (14 days )

ROI – 7.90 Crore (29 days )

ROW – 63 lakh (Australia, UK, US, Canada )

Total World Wide Gross – 60.68 Crores


So here is a kind request that please update the top grossing malayalam movies list. Imthiyaz07 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ref please King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: This edit request is for the film The Great Father. The redacted content was lifted verbatim from, so that is the reference. Imthiyaz07, do not copy and paste content into Wikipedia in the future. Copyright violations will not be tolerated. I'm not aware of any reason why KBOupdates should be considered sufficient as a reference. Who runs it? What are their qualifications? What expertise does the editorial team have in Indian film finance tracking? Who considers them reliable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To edit the Highest Grossing Malayalam Movies[edit]

Malayalam Movie The Great Father has collected 72cr world wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammed.suhail (talkcontribs) 13:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) [1][2][3][4]


Worldwide Gross of PK : Rs 743 crore[edit]

Worldwide Gross of PK from Two sources: 743 crore first source:
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion has hit 1000 crore GROSS Worldwide box office in ten days. The film had gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore a few days back. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide but now with its China run it can go over 900 crore but its not catching Bahubali - The Conclusion.

second source:
text here Bahubali 2 - The Conclusion which has smashed all box office records has also taken the Worldwide crown in just six days. The film has gone past the Worldwide record of PK at 743 crore with business close to 800 crore. Dangal was 718 crore Worldwide. PK at 743 crore and Dangal at 702 crore.
PK was released in Hindi only

The worldwide gross should be changed from 792 to 743 --Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rashkeqamar: And your explanation for why we should ignore the two reliable sources that are already present in the article[5][6], delete the 792 crore value and replace it with the lower 743 value is what, exactly? Is it that BoxOfficeIndia's estimates are more in line with your personal point of view, and so we should change the data to adhere to your perspective and ignore all other points of view? The entirety of Indian film financials are based on estimates, so there is no singular authority that anyone can describe as scientifically precise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:, In Overseas Gross of Indian Films including Hindi,Telugu ,Tamil films the data is consistent, but only in case of domestic gross in India(due to entertainment tax and also due to producers' stating more collection at times), the gross collection vary 3-10 crores range. The sites which you mentioned, ibtimes and indianexpress are NOT trade websites, they quote data from trade websites, like like TimesofIndia do , as here
So, the data should be taken from a trade website who deals with collection from every territory and quote its figure on its site consistently. In this case, is site which gives data for Hindi films and Hindi-Dubbed films . it is much better than Bollywood Hungama, which is not quoting regional collections and takes data from producers. so should be given priority. there was data differences 3-4 years back in Krrish 3 collections when producers exaggered the worldwide figures of film by 60 crores from actual 187 crores to 255 crores.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rashkeqamar: Your proposal to prioritize BOI over all others would require consensus agreement from members of the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia, since reliable sources are generally considered reliable until there is some reason to not consider them reliable. The proposition to give one site more weight than another in a matter of opinion, seems to be in conflict with WP:UNDUE. Now if you were proposing that the data should be presented in the form of a range (ex: 743–792 crore) that would be doable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of the lists[edit]

After looking at List of highest-grossing films(which is a featured list), it seems like there are several areas where this list can be improved. For example, it seems useless to mention the Producer/production house of the movie as that information only obfuscates what the reader is actually looking for(that is not done on the featured list as well). Hoping for a fruitful discussion. I put this on the top because I felt that this would be a massive change to the article. Thank you. Aravindreddy96 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aravindreddy96, thank you for opening a discussion. I've moved your comment to the bottom, because that's where editors expect to see new discussions. One glaring difference between this article and List of highest-grossing films is that at the featured list article, virtually all of the films are in English. Previous discussions at this article seem to prefer the inclusion of languages for one reason or another. Though some are motivated by a desire to have their ethnic film industry receive "credit", I think there is merit in knowing which languages are more likely to gross more money. It tells an interesting story when a film like Baahubali, which was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, dominates an industry where Hindi is the primary breadwinner. I'll let others weigh in on whether or not Studio and Director belong in the table. I think there's probably more value in including director than studio. Given how inherently unreliable Indian film financial data is, it is dubious that this list will ever achieve any of our quality benchmarks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Although I agree with you that there is merit in knowing about which languages gross more money in the Indian cinema, the question here is whether or not that offsets the degradation of the article by obfuscating more important data(i.e the rank of the movie and the total gross). I genuinely feel that the list would look much cleaner without the language column. Although your point about Baahubali is correct, this is a rare exception rather than the norm. Aravindreddy96 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, your response seems to be predicated on an unfounded position that the article is both degraded and obfuscated by the inclusion of language, which I don't think it is. I'm not aware of any regular editors or casual readers complaining about the complexity of the data. In fact, one editor wants to increase the data in these tables by adding inflation adjustments. An aesthetics argument should probably be based on previous complaints, rather than an arbitrary drive to conform this list to another. Though I do understand the argument for uniformity, Indian cinema has demonstrated that it is different than western cinema. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Great Father final discussion[edit]

All the people interested in changing The Great Father's discussion, please read this. Some of you include - @Anupmenon0007:, @Abbas.j63:, @Abi rockzz:, @Imthiyaz07:, @Muhammed.suhail:, @5ana1234: among other newbies who have formed accounts to update The Great Father's figures. Here are some information for you :

  • @Cyphoidbomb: is the admin who generally patrols pages about Indian Movies.
  • We only accept reliable sources as references for movies. For Indian movies the agreed sources include those listed in WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. We may accept sources not listed there, though that is not usually done. So that rules out sites like kboupdates, mollywoodtimes, filmfaktory etc.
  • We do not accept primary sources as references. So that rules out facebook pages of actors/producers/directors etc. However we may also not accept the figures if we are presented a news report from reliable sources where the source for the information is explicitly mentioned to have come from such people (actors/producers/directors) etc.

Now let us look at the references we have for the 50 crore figure, which we all know is not correct (the details are mentioned in Talk:The Great Father). However what you or I know is immaterial as we only look at sources and usually add the figures presented, if they meet the criteria :

And since you are all here, let me also take this opportunity to provide some suggestions. Mammootty's movies have very bad Wikipedia pages because fans like you are not interested in adding good information but are only interested in adding bloated figures. See how well the pages of Mohanlal's new movies are written and how informative they are- Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol, Pulimurugan, Oppam. Even his flop movies like 1971: Beyond Borders, Kanal (2015 film), Loham and Peruchazhi have long informative articles. And now take a look at The Great Father, Thoppil Joppan, Puthan Panam , White (2016 film) and Utopiayile Rajavu all of which are small uninformative articles which do not even have a plot (story) section.

If the time you spend in fighting for improving The Great Father's box office figures can be used for writing the plot for the movie, you would have done something worthwhile at that. Even if you add the 50 crore figure now, almost every reader knows that the numbers are fake and it will not have any impact. But if you improve articles of Mammootty's movies, it will have an impact on every reader. Cheers. And thanks for reading the long post. Do not form any more new sections and if you have to say anything comment below. Jupitus Smart 18:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: The the collection of Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol and Pulimurugan collection report is confirmed by Mohanlal and those movies producers respectively. In the case of Mammootty movies these specifications are made. I have provided various sources for the collection report. If you needed i will provide. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: I respect your statement, but we don't source figures based on our convictions. The collection of Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol may have been sourced from Mohanlal/producers. But the source provided for the same does not make any mention of that, and therefore we cannot arbitrarily overrule it. And if I understand correctly, you have said that you are willing to provide more references that meet the criteria for The Great Father. Please do so and if they indeed meet the criteria, there would be no problem in updating The Great Father's figures. Jupitus Smart 15:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: I understand what you said. But now i am providing the source which the report doesn'n shows that the collection is according to producers or any film members. It is a reliable source as early in this section this source jas been given. The Source is SOUTH LIVE. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Here is the another source Muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Here is the another source. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Muhammed.suhail:Its ironical when you say you have understood what I have written and act in a diametrically opposite way. I had clearly said in the 2nd line that we only accept reliable sources and not blog sites. To make it easier for you I had even listed the sites we generally accept - WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. I had even specifically overruled mollywoodtimes. Yet you continue to provide references from blog sites like pycker, southlive and mollywoodtimes. Let me put it to you more simply - if you are providing a Malayalam reference, provide a reference from a reputed newspaper like Manorama, Mathrubhumi etc or if the reference is in English, provide a reference from one of the sites listed in WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Jupitus Smart 03:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: sir then the source used for the movie Charlie (2015 Malayalam film) is IBT. In there report they say the collection is according to the twitter page KERALABOXOFFICE. Is that is a reliable source?? Muhammed.suhail (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail:Besides that the figures were inflated by some Dulquer Salman fan as well. I have removed that from the list. And I have added Pazhassi Raja to the list based on a request by @Sagar.kottappuram777:, which I feel is correct. And Sagar.kottappuram777 would be better off reading the entire paragraph before asking any more questions. As for producers and taxes, all producers can also have vested interests in inflating the numbers - bring in more people into the theatres, prop up the careers of actors, money laundering etc. And I don't think the producers are going to be be hounded by tax officials for what a facebook post says, which can easily be refuted by the producer. And for the last part, my job is only to objectively judge the suitability of a reference, and not to prove producers right or wrong. Jupitus Smart 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: ok sir I understand the wikipedia rules and what did you say.If i found a reliable source that you said I will inform it. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: If you find a reliable source, that you think meets all the criteria, then you don't have to inform me. You can add that yourself. Jupitus Smart 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Sir again the movie Charlie (2015 Malayalam film) has been come in the list with the same source that I shows it is not reliable. Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film) is also removed from the list. As per your concern the Times Of India os a reliable source and that report doesn't shows anything like it is confirmed by the producer. If you can add Charlie (2015 Malayalam film) then The Great Father also can be add. Please for what reason Pazhassi Raja is removed from the list. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I will replace Charlie after checking tomorrow. As for Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film), there was a lack of consensus over the figures in Talk:Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film), which was the reason why the numbers were never updated earlier. There were valid concerns that the figures were inflated, and I did not bother to check them when Sagar.kottappuram777 presented the reference. The administrator notified me of the oversight and I promptly reverted back to quid pro quo. Read the talk page discussion on the movie's page and you will understand more.Jupitus Smart 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: I would say that IBT's inclusion of a random tweet by this entity probably shouldn't be considered. There's no link in their Twitter profile to any web presence, so that we could establish why they are apparently experts in Indian film financials, but the Twitter account is also unverified, which would make it difficult to trust their claims even if they were a known authority, which has not been established. Just looks like another person posting random data, and this is exactly the problem that we've been talking about: Just because a typically-reliable source like IBT or Manorama posts some detail doesn't mean we need to swallow it as indisputable. If the actual source of the data is questionable, then the data is questionable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Charlie was a hit, although I cannot find another source which mentions the 42 crore figure. I will remove it for the time being, and wait for the fans to bring in proper references.Jupitus Smart 03:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Then sir Can you add another source for MunthiriVallikkal Thalirkkubol. Only Manorama News Arguing this all other source says that it is according to producer. So Manoram News made an error on it. Can you go for a detail study. I think that you find an error on the collection of Munthiri Vallikal Thalirkkumbol is not valid. Because according your sources the producer or actor post in facebook is not valid. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS report says that it is according to Mohanlal FB post. The link is
According to TIMES OF INDIA report it says that the collection report is according to Director. Then how is it valid??? If you can add Munthiri Vallikal Thalirkkumbol again on the list then you can add Kerala Varma Pazzhashiraja on that list. Here is the Pazzhashiraja Collection report according to Times Of India Muhammed.suhail (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have already told you this; we don't add sources arbitrarily, based on the whims of any particular editor. If you want to change the gross of Pazhassi Raja, discuss it on the talk page with the editors who had made valid points as to why the figures may be inflated. If you can establish a consensus, then we can consider updating the figures, though that seems unlikely as Pazhassi Raja does not appear in other reliable sources as having grossed 50 crore, including in TOI itself in a later article, meaning the one off link could have been an error/paid editing. As for Munthirivalikal -
  • The Times of India link does not say that the announcement was made by Jibu Jacob, instead saying that he thanked everyone on reaching the milestone.
  • The New India Express does say that Mohanlal announced the milestone. However many other sources have also independently verified the gross and have republished the 50 crore claim, without having to rely on Mohanlal's statements (Manorama, Indian Express, India Today and Catch News, among others). A Times of India article even says that the movie is nearing the 75 crore, based on its own assessments of the box office - TOI article. To put it simply just because Mohanlal announced the gross on his page, does not nullify the plethora of other sources which probably derived the figures from their independent sources. The same goes with The Great Father. If other reliable sources back the producer's claims, then The Great Father can also be considered for updation. However most sources still put the 50 crore figure entirely on Mammootty's claim while some others dismiss the figures for the movie as possible propaganda as mentioned earlier - Sify and IBT. The lack of consensus among reliable sources as opposed to the convergence of consensus for Munthirivalikal is the reason why The Great Father has not been updated.
Anyway I would not mind if Munthirivalikal's figures are changed after consensus is established towards that. Jupitus Smart 18:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: In tge movie Pulimurugan you give the source Catch News is that is a reliable source???? Muhammed.suhail (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Asking me the same question at multiple places won't change the answer. What I consider as reliable/unreliable is immaterial. The existing consensus is that Catch News is a reliable source, and I fully respect that. Jupitus Smart 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Here is the better aource For The Gteat Father At last of the report it says that it is copyright to The Indian Express. Again you are saying that it is not reliable you are just posting it according to tge fan base as you are a malayali Muhammed.suhail (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I just checked, inuth belongs to the Indian Express Group. So that would not have any issues, as Indian Express is considered a reliable source. So this can be accepted as source, though it does not mention anything relevant to the ongoing discussion. And if you think I am biased, you are better of asking somebody else to change the figures. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 11:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: Sorry The link i given is fault by me. Here is the real link Muhammed.suhail (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I am an involved editor, I should rather not decide on this. You are better of asking the administrator, who is more experienced in weighing the consensus arrived at by different sources. Jupitus Smart 13:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You deleted charlie from boxoffice report. ibtimes reported it has collected 42 crores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxoffice tracker (talkcontribs) 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boxoffice tracker: Please read the entire discussion before responding. Jupitus explained the problem with Charlie. Also neither "topmovierankings" nor "onlookersmedia" are reliable sources. Also, there are 10 films on our list of highest-grossing Malayalam films, so there's no place to put Charlie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kbo updates is considered as now official collection report provider of kerala box office. WHich is startup situated at kaloor kochi, formed to fullfil this purpose. So I found according to their report greatfather collected over 60cr and didn't found it is updated in wiki. so here my suggestion .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D004:A103:980A:4CC8:E64E:B916 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Kbo updates is considered as now official collection report provider of kerala box office." Considered by whom? There's no "official" anything in Indian finances, as all data is based on estimates. And "startup"s do not satisfy the community's need for sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That was just a suggestion.It doesn't matter whether it is updated in wiki or not.because no one considered wiki as a reliable source for boxoffice collections due to it's editable nature.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D48A:7586:AC99:F9F1:AA9:E11D (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Great. Please tell everyone you know that Wikipedia isn't the place for the constant box office fussing. I'd rather the bulk of India go to their preferred faceless blogs and questionable sources for "proof" and bicker amongst themselves off-site than come here and shout about which poor reference is the best source of the latest dubious rupee tally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Need Years wise Currency Conversion in Highest-grossing films by year[edit]

I suggest adding a Currency conversion of year collections to present date so that it will easy for viewers to compare and view to data easily. e.g. Collection of 18Cr(1990) in present date approx 18 crore (equivalent to 124 crore or US$19 million in 2016) Sanjan Kumar Patel 19:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Consensus could be construed to already exist here for the full removal of INRConvert templates from this article, and another discussion about INRConvert in general can be found here. The prevailing attitude toward INRConvert seems to be that we are arbitrarily converting Indian rupees to US dollars, which promotes pro-US bias. Why not Euros? Why not Yuan? 2) The use of the default INRConvert template is problematic for older films, because by default the template converts a number to the present-day equivalent of Rupees and US Dollars. 3) The inflation adjustment switch helps even the data out, but we're still presenting US values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Agree with your point about why we only convert the INR to USD. Actually, my point is that we should convert the collection value to an approx collection(exact is impossible) value in present date.

i.e. ₹18 crore in 1990 is (equivalent to ₹124 crore in 2017) so is there any template exist which will do this only show equivalent INR value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talkcontribs) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sanjanind: Please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. If you're having trouble finding the tilde key on your keyboard, click the pen and signature icon at the top of the edit window. Or click the four tildes that appear at the bottom of the edit window to insert the tildes at the end of your comment. Note that this is a requirement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017[edit]

Please Change

Baahubali 2 : The Conclusion - languages to Telugu,Tamil to Telugu, Tamil and Hindi

and same holds true for

Baahubali: The Beginning - languages to Telugu,Tamil to Telugu, Tamil and Hindi

Because Both movies were released in Hindi as well, and has also contributed significant share in amount.

Reference Mohitsharmaniit11 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Bahubali and Bahubali 2 are two cinematic parts simultaneously shot only in Telugu and Tamil. They were released in Hindi as dubbed versions. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 07:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017[edit]

The language for Bahubali 1 and 2 is Telegu AND Tamil Lebroned (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 07:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


We must focus on some development in the franchise screen it shows a lot of movies still running and appears as Baahubali beginning is still running . How to clear those green colored cells.. And we must include dollar alongside according to me.. 😃 Nabeelgm 😃(Talk)

Nabeel Gm 08:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 08:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why Include dollar ? It has nothing to do with this subject and it is also a small bias on our part. If dollar be included, there should be Pakiatanj Rupee, Yuan, Euro, Riyal etc as they are also unitsof money calculation. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Because in other places we have included dollar alongside rupees Nabeel Gm 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017[edit]

Please remove Baahubali from 'Highest Grossing Tamil films' section. Both Baahubali part 1 and 2 are Telugu films. Nani4215 (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Baahubali was filmed in Tamil, and thus, it is a Tamil-language film. You seem to be focused on industry, which is beyond the scope of what this article is intended to track. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Akhil Manne[edit] this is link of highest grossing movies in kanndada official by Karnataka film chamber update it sir please rajakumaraa first Kannada movie to gross 50 crores for first time in Kannada industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil Manne (talkcontribs) 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Akhil Manne: I assume your request is that we indicate Rajakumaraa (or however it's spelled) be ascribed a gross of 46 crore? Also, the reference you cited doesn't contain a date, so that makes it hard to format a proper citation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
actually kannada movies dont have official webite to view collections
the reference which i gave is by bangalore mirror, today showed up in tv news channel so- that is right imformation
i made a in sandbox u can check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil Manne (talkcontribs) 16:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Akhil Manne: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will add your name and a time stamp, so that other editors know who wrote what and when. Note that this is mandatory. I've updated the Raajakumara entry in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb but i dnt kw how to do that- u can do it ryt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil Manne (talkcontribs) 18:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Mungaru Male[edit]

The new reference for Raajkumara ([7]) says that it could become the first Kannada film to gross above 50 crore. Our figures for Mungaru Male is a range from 50 - 75 crores with the higher value coming from a primary source. Would it not be prudent if we remove the range and peg the figure at 50 crores for Mungaru Male as most sources, including the new one tend to converge around that number. Jupitus Smart 18:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I know the reason for changing Mungaru Male collection and making it top three...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevar shaa (talkcontribs) 15:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tevar shaa: for the reason that I have mentioned above. We don't allow references from primary sources to be considered as a matter of policy. Mungaru Male had the range as an exception, which I felt was not required as all other sources agreed on the 50 crore figure. And Mungaru Male is still the top Kannada movie as of today. All the top 3 movies are equally in first place, though it is internally sorted based on alphabetical order (date would have been better in this case as Mungaru Male's 50 crore 10 years ago is certainly more impressive, though the consensus on that is yet to be formed).Jupitus Smart 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responding n Mungaru Male should have been top among three. Y bcz it was collected over ₹50 crore 10 years back.. If we count that figure till date 50 crore (equivalent to 112 crore or US$17 million in 2016)... So am requesting u to make it top... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevar shaa (talkcontribs) 08:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tevar shaa: please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will append your name and a time stamp, so that editors will know who they are talking to and when the comment was left. There should a button at the top of the window with a pen and signature. You can click that at the end of your post, if typing tildes is too difficult. To answer your question, I think it's going to be a colossal waste of editors' time to organise by inflation-adjusted gross. Something simple like organising by alphabet is the most intuitive and neutral approach. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2017[edit] (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Entire article paste: Moved Kabali to #4 spot


* Denotes films still running in theaters
Rank Movie Year Director Studio(s)/Producers Language Worldwide gross
1 Baahubali 2: The Conclusion 2017 S. S. Rajamouli Arka Media Works 1,227 crore (US$190 million)[1]
2 Dangal 2016 Nitesh Tiwari Walt Disney Pictures/
Aamir Khan Productions/
UTV Motion Pictures
Hindi 867 crore (US$130 million)[2]
3 PK 2014 Rajkumar Hirani Vinod Chopra Films/Rajkumar Hirani Films Hindi 792 crore (US$120 million)[3][4]
4 Kabali 2016 Pa. Ranjith V Creations Tamil 700 crore (US$110 million)[5][6][note 1]
5 Baahubali: The Beginning 2015 S. S. Rajamouli Arka Media Works Telugu 650 crore (US$100 million)[12]
6 Bajrangi Bhaijaan 2015 Kabir Khan Salman Khan Films/Kabir Khan Films Hindi 626 crore (US$97 million)[3][4]
7 Dhoom 3 2013 Vijay Krishna Acharya Yash Raj Films Hindi 585 crore (US$91 million)[13]
8 Sultan 2016 Ali Abbas Zafar Yash Raj Films Hindi 584 crore (US$91 million)[14]
9 Prem Ratan Dhan Payo 2015 Sooraj R. Barjatya Fox Star Studios/Rajshri Productions Hindi 432 crore (US$67 million)[15]
10 Chennai Express 2013 Rohit Shetty Red Chillies Entertainment Hindi 423 crore (US$66 million)[16]
11 3 Idiots 2009 Rajkumar Hirani Vinod Chopra Films Hindi 395 crore (US$61 million)[17]
12 Dilwale 2015 Rohit Shetty Red Chillies Entertainment/Rohit Shetty Productions Hindi 394 crore (US$61 million)[16]
13 Bajirao Mastani 2015 Sanjay Leela Bhansali SLB Films Hindi 358 crore (US$56 million)[16]
14 Kick 2014 Sajid Nadiadwala Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Hindi 352 crore (US$55 million)[16]
15 Happy New Year 2014 Farah Khan Red Chillies Entertainment Hindi 345 crore (US$54 million)[16]


  1. ^ Box office gross values of 6–6.75 billion were reported for Kabali in its first 13 days,[7][8] which were more than double the estimates made by other sources.[9] International Business Times (IBT) and Firstpost criticized these estimates as inflated, explaining the discrepancy as due in part to the addition of "pre-release business" figures, such as music and satellite rights sales of 2 billion,[10] being factored into the box office sales totals.[9] Firstpost wrote, "More conservative estimates put Kabali’s collections at around Rs [3 billion] from worldwide ticket sales."[10] IBT's analysts estimated the film's worldwide gross total at around 3.5 billion (US$54 million).[11]


  1. ^ "Bahubali 2 10 day box office collection: Prabhas starrer heading to cross Rs 1,500 crore mark". ibtimes. 
  2. ^ Ghosh, Devarsi (10 May 2017). "Baahubali 2 box-office collection day 13: Dangal's China release threatening to break Rajamouli's records". India Today. Retrieved 10 May 2017. 
  3. ^ a b Ankita Mehta (22 July 2016). "Worldwide box office collection: Salman's 'Sultan' set to beat 'Baahubali' and 'Dhoom 3' global earnings". International Business Times. Retrieved 9 August 2016. 
  4. ^ a b "Salman Khan's Sultan earns Rs 500 crore in total but won’t beat Aamir Khan's PK". The Indian Express. 22 July 2016. Retrieved 31 July 2016. 
  5. ^ "'Kabali' box office collection: Rajinikanth-starrer fails to beat 'Bahubali' (Baahubali) US record". International Business Times. 24 August 2016. 
  6. ^ "'Kabali' Box Office collection". International Business Times India. 4 August 2016. 
  7. ^ "Rajinikanth starrer Kabali box office collections rise to over Rs 650 crore, turns No. 1 movie in India - The Financial Express". 1 August 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. 
  8. ^ "Rajinikanth starrer Kabali box office collections rise to over Rs 650 crore, turns No. 1 movie in India - The Financial Express". 1 August 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. 
  9. ^ a b "'Kabali' box office collection: Reports of Rajinikanth-starrer raking in Rs. 675 crore in 13 days are fake". Archived from the original on 5 August 2016. 
  10. ^ a b "Rajinikanth's Kabali has earned Rs 600 crore at the global box office. Or has it? - Firstpost". 3 August 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. 
  11. ^ "'Kabali' Box Office collection". International Business Times India. 4 August 2016. Archived from the original on 5 August 2016. 
  12. ^ "'Kabali' box office collection: Rajinikanth starrer fails to beat 5 records of 'Baahubali' (Bahubali)". International Business Times. 2016-08-09. 
  13. ^ Hungama, Bollywood (7 January 2017). "Box Office: Aamir Khan’s Dangal eclipses Dhoom 3; becomes 3rd Highest worldwide grosser - Bollywood Hungama". 
  14. ^ "Box Office: Worldwide Collections and Day wise breakup of Sultan". Bollywood Hungama. Archived from the original on 24 August 2016. Retrieved 13 August 2016. 
  15. ^ "Best of 2015: Top 6 highest grossing films". 
  16. ^ a b c d e "Top Worldwide Grossers All Time". 
  17. ^ "Chennai Express Crosses Ek Tha Tiger Worldwide In Ten Days". Box Office India. Archived from the original on 2013-11-03. Retrieved 8 August 2014. 


Not done for now: Can you provide a reference that shows Kabali has taken the #4 spot? — IVORK Discuss 11:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't. Some sources (Indian Express/Financial Express, etc.) were practicing poor journalism and lumping in "pre-release income" with the box office figures, inflating the numbers by 200+ crore rupees. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for not adding Great father in the list[edit]

Please clarify the reason you removed great father from the list?The reasons you mentioned above for muhammed suhail's questions are not convincing

1. What source you want other than the one suhail listed above to include Great father in the list?If you consider manorama as a reliable source,why cant you include the same source for Great father as well.You mentioned that in second line,they mention that it is confirmed by producer.Is producer the right person to confirm the collection?If not him,who will you think is the best person to confirm the collection?Producer is very well aware that he has to pay tax for the figures he confirm as the collection of movie. If that is your problem,do you have any statement to prove that what producer said is not correct?If manorama is a reliable source,all contents in that source should be reliable.You cannot put that as the reason to remove the movie from the list.

2.The same excuse is applicable for Pazhassi raja as well.Below one is report from times of india,which is definitely a reliable source where it is mentioned that pazhassi has collected 49 crore and nothing mentioned like confirmed by producer in the article.WHy cant you update pazhassi in the list?

If you are not able to do the change as above,then please let us know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talkcontribs) 06:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit] Bahubali collection is 1621.25 Crores Moneyjain (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Moneyjain: We don't use random websites as references at Wikipedia. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general list of sites that are and are not considered reliable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hebbuli kannada film[edit]

hebbuli has been officially announced as the first 100 cr. film of kannada cinema..but it is not even mentioned in the top ten list..why ? Zafarmasood123 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zafarmasood123: Speaking solely from a common sense perspective, there is no "official" independent tracking of financial data in Indian cinema. So it's unclear what you mean by "official". Do you mean the figures announced by the producers/director/actors, etc? Because if so, we don't use primary sources for controversial claims. Producers/directors/actors/distributors all have financial incentives to exaggerate their box office claims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit]

King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) ref update box officle collection for baahubali 2. King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @King Prithviraj II: Koimoi is not considered a reliable source by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. Please see WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general list of sites that are and are not considered suitable. Also, please be specific about the changes you want made to articles, like "please change X to Y". Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit]

Baahubali The Conclusion is in Hindi As well not only telugu/tamil (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It isn't clear from your message what you're proposing be changed in the article, but if you're proposing we add Hindi to the Language column in the top table, we wouldn't do that, because the film was not shot in Hindi. It was, however, shot in Telugu and Tamil. Dubs don't belong in the language column. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Update Bahubali 2 Earnings[edit]

Update Bahubali 2 gross collection worldwide it was not updated from last 5 days. People are updating falls figure for Dangal movie. Dangal earning updated daily with fake figure no relaible source of that earning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulrawat19 (talkcontribs) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2017[edit]

"Kabali" Tamil film starring Rajinikanth grossed total of "$77 million worldwide" according to "Forbes". The link is, " " ... (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I've modified your changes slightly. Kabali's gross has been a nightmare, and sparing you the gory details, a straight conversion of the 2017 US$77 million value to Indian rupees could already yield a wide range of "crore" values, but also Kabali was a 2016 film, so inflation may be an issue. Anyway, short story, I've presented the value as a range of 477–499 crore based on Indian Express's estimate of 477 and the highest conversion of $77 million to that is < 500 crore rupees. Augh. This hurts my head. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Old data for Baahubali gross[edit]

Why the gross figures for Baahubali 2 are not being updated? The page has been protected to prevent others from doing anything as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvumerijaan (talkcontribs) 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iluvumerijaan: Wikipedia is not a breaking news source and we're not under any obligation to frantically update Indian film financial estimates every time a new estimate is published. That said, if you open an edit request and provide reliable sources, volunteers can better assist. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a rough list of sources that are and are not considered reliable. Note that any blogs or otherwise insufficient sources will be rejected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi please update the data for Bahubali 2, it seems to be the data 1 week ago. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren2040 (talkcontribs) 03:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ren2040: Thanks for your response here and above where you confirmed that the Tamil version is not a dub. To update figures in this article we'd need references from reliable sources. A bit obstacle in that process is that a lot of editors who happen by do not know what qualifies as a reliable source. We typically always avoid blogs or random websites, we don't like to swallow producer/director/actor/distributor claims, so that leaves major mainstream news sources. WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources is a good rough explanation for the general sorts of sites the community likes. If you can help find some, then other editors can help update the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You are not the owner or official agent of wikipedia. Don't act over smart or try to become the official spokesperson of wikipedia. I see that you are a South Asian Muslim. What is the source of your incessant hatred against all things remotely Hindu? It's a collaborative site and all should be ideally welcome to edit. What's your problem with that? Or do you think it belongs to a niche set of white privileged editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvumerijaan (talkcontribs) 18:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Iluvumerijaan: I don't understand your response as it doesn't seem to pertain in any way to my comment above. Maybe try again, but focusing on the discussion topic instead? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb, ok thank you for the explaination and your efforts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren2040 (talkcontribs) 10:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2017[edit]

adding new section of highest openers or highest grossing movies in 48 hours Govindkrishna29 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Before seeking consensus, you might want to think about the following: "Highest opener" is vague since it's unclear how you'd establish what constitutes an "opener" and how we could easily compare a complicated opener with a "standard" opener. Would a Tuesday public premiere be the opener? Or would we have to go solely on opening weekend? Or would we add Tuesday's public premiere to the Friday, Saturday and Sunday take? What if a film was released on a Saturday? And what's the significance of 48 hours? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2017[edit]

fourth highest grossing malayalam movie is great father change premam to the great father Jedu05 (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. See elsewhere on talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For What Reason Pazzhashiraja is not adding in the Higheat Grossing Malayalam Movie[edit]

According To Times Of India Report Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film) has collected 49cr. According to Wikipedia Times Of India is a reliable source. In that report it is not saying that the collection report is not according to the producer or actor. Here is the link

For what reason you are adding this movie in the list Please answer it Muhammed.suhail (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: There was a detailed discussion about this here. Some editors felt it was clearly a mistake, with one argument being that TOI's failure to repeat the claim supports the likelihood that it is a mistake. For example here, there is no mention of KVPR in a Top 5 highest-grossing Malyalam films presentation. When we're dealing with questionable content, we typically try to go with what most sources are saying, not with what one source says. This should make sense, because 1) Indian film financials are notoriously unreliable. 2) Indian film financials are notoriously inflated. 3) Indian film journalism isn't always as good as it could be. 4) People can make mistakes.
Just because a source exists doesn't mean it can't be questioned, and in this case, the argument that Times of India never repeated the claim is somewhat significant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Then sir Can you add another source for MunthiriVallikkal Thalirkkubol. Only Manorama News Arguing this all other source says that it is according to producer. So Manoram News made an error on it. Can you go for a detail study. Muhammed.suhail (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I think that you find an error on the collection of Munthiri Vallikal Thalirkkumbol is not valid. Because according your sources the producer or actor post in facebook is not valid. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS report says that it is according to Mohanlal FB post. The link is

According to TIMES OF INDIA report it says that the collection report is according to Director. Then how is it valid??? Muhammed.suhail (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Baahubali 2 Hindi[edit]

The film released worldwide in Tamil, Telegu and Hindi however the latter has been omitted. Please rectify this. Thanks. Factual Proof (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover even if it wasn't filmed in Hindi the revenue from that version is significant enough (almost half of the global revenue) to warrant the inclusion of that version. Factual Proof (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaaand what is the academic, encyclopedic precedent (arrived at by discussion, of course) for branding X-language onto a film when it was dubbed rather than filmed in that language? Are Jerry Lewis's English films described as French because he was very popular in France? If the Cantonese dub of Captain America: Civil War was super-popular, did we re-describe that film as English/Cantonese? If a filmmaker decides that his story is best presented in Telugu and Tamil, do Wikipedia editors get to second-guess his judgment and declare that "no, bro, the film was also intended to be Hindi, based on the success of that dub after the fact"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, its Hindi version got the highest collection, so Hindi is omitted from the page, and it gives the viewer an incomplete view. There should be some mention on this page itself, like a note stating the dubbed versions and their languages. Your view ? (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what incomplete view you're talking about. The film was shot in Telugu and Tamil. Check. The film grossed NNNN. Check. That's pretty much the entire view required for this basic list article. We don't break down the gross by languages here. If more detail is of academic interest, the intuitive place for that detail to go is at the main Baaahubali 2 article if editors so deem it necessary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2017[edit]

can we add highest grossing films adjusted by inflation? I have many sources Govindkrishna29 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request dated 15 May 2017[edit]

Near Rajamouli's pic change 1000 crore to 1500 crore which is the current gross. (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER 17:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@DRAGON BOOSTER: Already present in the page. (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. Clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced, and what they should be replaced with. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 04:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Raajakumar 50 crores gross[edit]

Please update Kannada film Raajakumara's gross to be 50 crores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talkcontribs) 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wadelison: Why would we do that? The article only indicates a gross of 46 crore had been achieved at the time of printing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's protected[edit]

Hi, who can access it as I can't gain access as it shows protected (Talk)Nabeel Gm 05:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 05:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nabeelgm: If you click on the lock at the top right of the article, it will link you to: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#extended. Editors with more than 30 days experience and over 500 edits may edit this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Great Father Malayalam Movie Boxoffice[edit]

Add The Great Father on the highest grossing malayalam movies. It collected 50cr. When I asked editor to change it he is not willing because he is Mammootty hater. The respective admins please do the step to involve this Muhammed.suhail (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Maybe he doesn't want to update the figures because you've introduced personal attacks and questions about his character into the discussion. That's never a wise idea in any form of discussion, but at Wikipedia it's expressly disallowed. What's the expression about it being easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar? Don't forget that there were legitimate problems with poor sourcing going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok iam sorry Muhammed.suhail (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I don't personally know whether or not meets the reliable sourcing criteria. For the sake of simplicity and harmony, we'll assume that the Express Group is doing what they're supposed to by providing proper editorial oversight to the beta site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: The Great Father is still running in WorldWide Boxoffice Muhammed.suhail (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Muhammed.suhail: Which I interpret as a request to add the appropriate colouration?  Done here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request dated 16 May 2017[edit]

In Global gross collections section, director S S Rajamoulis picture is present. There it says Baahubali 2 to be the first Indian film to cross 1000 crore. I would request you to change that 1000 crore to 1500 crore as per This url. (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Though I see a figure of 1,500, it's not clear if this is box office revenue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

update bahubali 2 gross icome[edit]

Update bahubali 2 gross income worldwide 2167 Crores till date. source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulrawat19 (talkcontribs) 11:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atulrawat19: Not done - We don't pick random websites and use them as references. is not a reliable source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Just a small thoughts.. Is Forbes really a trusted site?? Where someone used the site as a evidence for Theri collection record.. Please someone explain this.. Thanks.. Mathan EvAz (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For questions about the reliability of particular sources, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
Forbes is a US-based financial magazine that has been around for almost 100 years. It has a well-established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and it's certainly not a fly-by-night publication like most of the blogs that get submitted on the talk page here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dangal Collections 1275 crores , kindly update[edit] Saisiddharth4u (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That ref is not reliable per Indian cinema task force, I have already heard that a hundred times. - - (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2017[edit]

THe gross of Bahubali 2 has crossed 1500 crores according to recent news Bahubali 2 The conclusion has crossed 1500 Cr. Kindly update them. (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done Indian film financials are in a constant state of flux, and sources are persistently pressured to report the latest record estimate. The more prudent academic approach is to wait until the majority of sources stabilize, and agree in their reports that arbitrary NNN or NNNN gross figure has been achieved. Thankfully, Wikipedia has no deadline, so we're not under pressure to report the latest estimate. If this is a problem for you, we could always remove the image of Rajamouli and the associated braggadocio until the details settle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2017[edit]

In the section Global gross figures, director S. S Rajamouli's picture is present with the caption S. S. Rajamouli's Baahubali 2: The Conclusion is the highest grossing Indian film to date and he is the first Indian director to achieve the feat of grossing over than 1000 crore rupees. Please change that to S. S. Rajamouli's Baahubali 2: The Conclusion is the highest grossing Indian film to date and he is the first Indian director to achieve the feat of grossing over than 1,500 crore (US$230 million). Reasons given are that refs state it to be the first and only Indian film to cross 1500 crore. 1000 figure is outdated. Also, formatted the format of the amount display. Refs - Kindly do the needful. (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Indian film financials are in a constant state of flux, and sources are persistently pressured to report the latest record estimate. The more prudent academic approach is to wait until the majority of sources stabilize, and agree in their reports that arbitrary NNN or NNNN gross figure has been achieved. Thankfully, Wikipedia has no deadline, so we're not under pressure to report the latest estimate. If this is a problem for you, we could always remove the image of Rajamouli and the associated braggadocio. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction below S. S. Rajamouli's photo[edit]

The following detail below S. S. Rajamouli's photo is grammatically incorrect.

Please change

"S. S. Rajamouli's Baahubali 2: The Conclusion is the highest grossing Indian film to date and he is the first Indian director to achieve the feat of grossing over than 1000 crore rupees"


"S. S. Rajamouli's Baahubali 2: The Conclusion is the highest grossing Indian film to date and he is also the first Indian director to achieve the feat of grossing over 1500 crore rupees".

Dangal was also directed by an Indian director. And Baahubali 2 has now crossed 1500-crore mark.

--EVOLU710N (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Ijaz Ahmed 6.38PM IST, 19-May-17

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2017[edit]

I am a vivid follower of Telugu Movie Box Office Collections. After referring to some reliable sources , I believe that this page has false information. I would like to edit and improve the content of this page . (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2017[edit]

Jay191193 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 15:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on List of highest-grossing Indian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2017[edit]

Need to provide the exact details. Sivaeeebe (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Providing more details

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 10:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2017[edit] (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC) 1.bahubali the conclusion 1755cr

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2017[edit]

Please refer real china collection of dangal at Kishorek2017 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Kishorek2017: Please read our reliable sourcing guidelines, including WP:UGC. There's no indication that this random blog is a reliable source. Who runs it? What are their qualifications? Who are the journalists involved. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for general list of sites considered reliable and not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation[edit]

I think we must add adjusted for inflation to also post tribute to old films

Nabeel Gm 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nabeelgm: 1) How do you propose we add an inflation adjustment when there is already consensus to remove INRConvert from the article? 2) What on earth do you mean "post tribute to old films"? Wikipedia doesn't do "tributes", so please be very clear about what you are suggesting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: i know about it but we need to add this new section Nabeel Gm 11:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nabeelgm: Consensus is not established by saying "I want ___". If you expect change at this article, you need to present your arguments, and when queried about how you think it should be implemented, should conceive of some solution, not just reassert your wish. I still don't know what you mean by "tributes", and since you haven't bothered to clarify that, I'll just assume the matter is dropped. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2017[edit]

Dangal is shown to have 1523 crore collection while reference shows it as 1501 crore. Please find a reference or change it to 1501 crore. It was changed here without a reference. (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Reverted here. Editor has been notified. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dangal collections 1523 crores[edit] Saisiddharth4u (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Sptavva7 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is GADAR not in the list[edit]

I have referred wikipedia to find out that Gadar- Ek prem katha has collected almost 468 crores from bollywood. Why is that film not in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeev07nair (talkcontribs) 04:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

yes, there seem to be inaccuracy in data for the 2000 and 2001 years.... in 2000 "kaho na pyaar hai" was highest grossing movie but here "mohabbatein" is given. similarly "gadar" was highest grossing in 2001 but here "K3G" is given..... both are incorrect -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Rajeev07nair, where is the 468 crore figure coming from? That seems insanely, and unbelievably high. According to this source from December 2001, Gadar: Ek Prem Katha "touched 60 crore". But even looking at this source, Gadar grossed 133 crore and Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham grossed 135.53 crore, which is why the latter film is in the #1 spot. My guess is that you're looking at the "adjusted nett gross" as indicated here. I don't know what this figure means, but we don't use variations on gross in film articles. We don't use "adjusted nett gross", we don't use "nett gross", etc. The figure we care about is the raw gross. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cyphoidbomb for correcting me. I misunderstood the "adjusted nett gross" as actual gross and now only realised that it is the adjusted amount according to current currency value.

Dangal crossed Baahubali 2 worldwide gross to emerge as Highest grossing Indian film worldwide[edit]


--Rashkeqamar (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As per this report on Firstpost, the worldwide box office gross of Dangal is 1546 crore. ~Rajan51 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please revert Dangal collection as is not a valid news source.[edit]

Please revert Dangal collection as is not a valid news source. The site is not a valid news source it can be manipulated. The gross income of Dangal is re-and-still-counting-1697299

Dangal gross collection worldwide is 1453 Crores only not 1,743 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulrawat19 (talkcontribs) 12:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done - Truly bizarre. This guy wanted us to only use as a source, and you for some reason, want us to completely disregard it. There is no established basis for your request, as BOI is generally considered reliable, even though their figures may not be consistent with other sources. Keep in mind that all Indian film financial figures are estimates, and without independent central auditing there is no way to gauge accuracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How come Dangal collections went past from 1,523 crores to 1743 crore in one day?[edit]

Dangal collections were 1,523 crores until 23rd May. How come it went to 1743 crore by 24th May. Definitely, something is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talkcontribs) 13:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bhuvannalla: a few posts up someone seems to attribute the bump to the release of the Mandarin dub. I don't know if that's legit. He added links, so you can check it out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bhuvannalla: Well, I've had to redact the comment because the guy took the content mostly verbatim from this source, but if you look at the source, that might explain some things. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC) this is correct source for baahubali 2 and dangal update it @CyphoidbombCyphoidbomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil Manne (talkcontribs) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Akhil Manne: How do you arrive at that link being the "correct source", as opposed to other sources with conflicting opinions being "correct"? The entirety of Indian film finances is based on guesses. You're placing a lot of stock in one guess over another guess. Also, who is Ramesh Bala and what is Cinema Pesalam? I don't see either at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I Think its all the work of "Hindi lobby"... Dangal was not showing as "currently running in cinemas" for past three months, but as soon as "Baahubali 2" reached 1500 crores , hindi lobby suddenly became proactive and turned the background color of "Dangal" to green just to show that it is currently running in theaters... the fact is dangal has completed its theatrical run long ago...its current run in "China" and earnings shown there is the handiwork of this hindi lobby which cannot digest the fact that a Tamil/Telugu film has crossed them in the highest ever benchmarks of 1500 crores.. that is it ...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Adamstraw99: If this were a western film, say, one of the Marvel superhero films, would we not track the film's release in China? Captain America: Civil War made significant money in China, and those financial gains are all part of the USD$1.153 billion gross. There is also specific coverage of monies made in other regions, including China, South Korea, and the UK, which were the three largest international markets. How is Dangal any different? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
yup, yup, @Cyphoidbomb, dangal is no different(despite the fact that hindi lobby jumped in after baahubali defeated dangal..hehe) .... but you hev not yet told me why 'mohabbatein' and 'K3G' ARE listed as highest grossers for the year 2000 and 2001 when actually they are not...and you are defending both these inaccurate listings ?? Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Adamstraw99: Do I really need to explain why? It should be extraordinarily obvious: Because that's what the sources[8][9] say. We don't edit according to our personal opinions/impressions/beliefs, we edit according to what sources say. So if you want to challenge the BOI figures, you'll need to bring references to the contrary and then present a compelling argument for why we should ignore BOI. And, you will need the agreement of other editors to make such a change. This discussion should all take place somewhere other than in this discussion thread, since this thread is about Dangal, not about 16-17 year-old films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

According to ramesh bala the collections of dangal were 1535 crore and bahubali 2 were 1596 crore but here it was totally different.

The box office report website shows different figures now as compared to what was edited here. So that website definitely looks unreliable Scak80 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is now showing 1530cr for dangal. Scak80 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Check the following sites: dangal-vs-baahubali-2-worldwide-box-office-collection-aamir-khans-film-set-beat-record-prabhas-728126 Scak80 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Though I am not ruling out the reliability of Box Office India (BOI), I certainly feel that it's recent report is absurd. I mean, the day Baahubali 2 (BB2) grossed Rs 1500 crore, most of the reliable news blogs reported this fate on the next day with a proper agreement of figures. If Dangal had indeed surpassed BB2 and that two by a huge margin of 156 crore, it would have received huge coverage on online media at least. Like it happened when BB2 broke PK's record and when it grossed over 1000 crore and when it grossed over 1500 crore. But in this case, I didn't come across even a single "reliable" source other than BOI supporting Dangal's 1743 crore figures (the problem lies in the figure itself). Instead the other sources continued citing trade analysts' estimates for both films. Right from BB2's release upto yesterday, we had gone as per reliable sources citing estimates of trade analysts Ramesh Bala and Taran Adarsh and we knew that Dangal was still trailing past BB2 by a sizable margin till yesterday and most sources supported the same. And today, we suddenly come across a single BOI report which makes nearly "absurd" claims. I think we must give weightage to largely agreeing sources published by likes of India Today, NDTV, The Indian Express, Business Standard etc. Even The Times of India (TOI), which is often the first website to report BOI's figures has reported only those of BB2, i.e. 1530 crore figure against 1586 crore figure commonly supported by rest of the sources. TOI hasn't reported Dangal's figures of BOI. There is something fishy and biased in the particular highlighted report of BOI. We must check it properly sir. I think we must wait until other sources also report about Dangal surpassing BB2. Please do reply. Vibhss (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: ramesh bala is box office analyst - he gives correct numbers and taran adrash is senior most box office analyst of india- if u want to know about detailed collection of dangal you can check it taran adrash twitter page, dangal is not crossed bahubali 2 yet.indian collections are not guess anymore- it was earlier but not now, if u believe in that guesses why did you trusted boxoffice india website ? and why did u updated in wikipedia, only website which is wrong, their are lot of websites with correct figures which is dangal not crossed baahubali 2, please edit it in wikipedia (Akhil Manne (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Edit the gross figure of Dangal. Now the same page edited Dangal collections as 1538 crore. We can use this reference for both the films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to login.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2017[edit]

As per IBT times india Baahubali2 and Dangal are yet to cross 1600 crores gross worlwide with Baahubali having an edge over Dangal. Due to wrong calculations Boxoffice india site has provided Dangal with an additional 200+ crores which has to be reverted back

I am trying to bring the changes as below SIIMA (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Dangal collections are wrongly calculated by boxofficeindia so delete the wrong source.[1][edit]

Currently Baahubali2 and Dangal movies are running successfully all over the world and they have collected approximately 1596 and 1563 crores globally. Now out of somewhere a site called came up with some bizzare numbers which are wrongly framed. Based on the reference provided correct the article "List of highest-grossing Indian films". If needed let me know if the reference provided is not sufficient as we can give reference of multiple sites with correct source data.

SIIMA (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2017[edit]

File:S. S. Rajamouli at the trailer launch of Baahubali.jpg|thumb|140px|S. S. Rajamouli's Baahubali 2: The Conclusion is the first highest grossing Indian film to date and he is the first Indian director to achieve the feat of grossing over than 1000 crore rupees (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Baahubali 2 vs Dangal box-office collection: Aamir Khan's film beats SS Rajamouli's epic[edit]

Update the latest collection information from valid source

As per box-office figures, Dangal has earned Rs 1743 crore worldwide, while Baahubali 2 has netted Rs 1530 crore. | Chennai, May 26, 2017 | UPDATED 10:05 IST Sanjan Kumar Patel 07:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talkcontribs)

That was a typing error by Box Office India which listed it at 1738 crore first, now its changed to 1538. India Today replicated the source. That time Baahubali 2 had 1530 crore so technically it was surpassed. Then again Baahubali 2 got 1596 crore while Dangal got only 1563 crore, so its number one once again. Oh yeah ! (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's totally wrong Jagan rao (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jagan rao: What do you mean ? (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)I
I wrote about it in Bahubali gross according to youtube — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagan rao (talkcontribs) 15:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why it is written second highest grossing film for Baahubali 2 under Rajamouli's picture[edit]

Please remove the word second until it comes to the second position — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the image in this edit. Seems like a needless distraction/decoration while the finances are still in flux. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2017[edit]

In the global gross figures, Rajamouli's picture is present. Yesterday, its caption was changed to second highest as per yesterday's collection which was 1530 crore as compared to Dangal's 1538 crore. However, today's latest sources already present in the article report that Baahubali 2 has once again broken Dangal and also Box Office India wrote it incorrectly as 1739 crore. (it is corrected now on their website to 1539 crore [5 and 7 got exchanged while typing i guess], current gross of Baahubali is 1605 crore.) Based on the references provided in the global gross figures table, please change it to number one to reflect current status. (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I see image got removed, now that's better instead of the incorrect info (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A request to ensure accuracy[edit]


As the battle for top spot gets closer, can we please ensure that the worldwide box office numbers we publish can be verified by breaking them down into domestic and international revenue? This will ensure that figures circulated by the media cannot be used unless they can be verified in such a way.

Thanks. Factual Proof (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Bahubali gross according to youtube[edit]

Many of youtube videos had been saying that bb2 collections had reached 1657 by 28 may,2017. But ,many of english news papers had been saying that bb2 had just grossed 1600 crores and also they are saying that dangal had crossed bb2 Why they are giving there own statements without any official meet by dangal producers? Even bb2 producers are giving data about collections. And also most of papers are discriminating telugu movie . So please stop editing the dangal collections till official data was given by their producers. Not only dangal but also bb2 .Don't edit them.Please save the respect of Wikipedia.Please.And also if you want to change collections refer highest grossing films of china once. Jagan rao (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Youtube contains famade videos, official data released by producers are not used in Wikipedia as they are labelled primary sources, the producer may increase the money to reach number 1. Also note to admins, the Baahubali 2 gross is 1633 according to the reference while it is 1623 now. Change it as the ref does not mention 1623 only 1633. (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2017[edit]

"Please change Box office collection of KABALI From Rajat491 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2017[edit]

Please change the collections of Dangal to RS 1756 crores as the box office tracker Ramesh Bala tweeted it. Because every time the collections are changed when any website writes about it saying that Ramesh Bala said so. But this time he tweeted it 7 hours ago, but still there is no changes in the wikipedia page. Ferdouse Shihab (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wikipedia is not a breaking news source, and we're not required to fanatically mirror the latest box office guesses tweeted by the professional guessers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2017[edit]

Tony28tarun (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 03:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2017[edit]

Gyan0401 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2017[edit]

Update Sachin: A Billion Dreams collections in the Maraṭhi films section per ref To 38.80 crore. (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2017[edit]

Please Change Kabali Box office to Rs650 Crore.[1][2] Rajat491 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


Not done: @Rajat491: This is an old, old issue. If you read the article currently, it explains in great detail why the high number you are submitting is ridiculous. It's obvious that Financial Express and Indian Express was including the much celebrated, record-breaking music/satellite rights pre-release figure of 200 crore into their total, which is a supremely idiotic and irresponsible thing for them to do when the rest of the universe talks about a film's gross in terms of box office gross, i.e. money made solely at the box office through ticket sales. There are two focal points when measuring a film's gross: How much it grossed domestically, and how much it grossed internationally. One of the references currently in this article is this Dec 2016 piece from Financial Express, which says, "[Kabali earned] Rs 215 crore within India ... and Rs 262 crore from abroad, for a total of Rs 677 crore.". Well, 215 domestic + 262 international = 477 crore. That's your total. Where did the 677 come from? Obviously from the 200 crore pre-release income. So, the figures that are currently at List of highest-grossing Indian films, which present a range from 477 to 499 crore (Forbes' estimate) are as close to accurate as you can get. 650-677 is ridiculous. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2017[edit]

Kabali numbers are blatantly incorrect. I would appreciate if the number is changed back to 350 crores per the history of this page. Someone is trying to bump it up for wrong reasons. I would appreciate this change be rolled back ASAP agopal128 (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @Agopal128: See the comment directly above this one. The current gross range of 477-499 is properly sourced and is more reflective of the actual gross than either the 350 value or the ridiculous super-high 600+ values. There are adequate notes in the article, which I assume you did not see, that explains the entire issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2017[edit]

in higest grossing movies bahubali 1&2 are originally telugu and not tamil please make it telugu. (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is not terribly specific, but I assume you don't understand what the language column in the article is for, or perhaps the various language sub-sections are for. If a movie was *FILMED* in multiple languages, as Baahubali 1 and 2 was, (it was filmed in Telugu and Tamil, not dubbed) then it qualifies as a highest-grossing film originally produced in multiple languages. No, that's not satisfying for people who are looking to hoist their particular ethnic identity aloft, but from a technical standpoint noting that the the film is a Tamil-language release, is not inaccurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2017[edit]

Per this ref here, Dangal has collected ₹ 1823 crore and Baahubali 2: The Conclusion has collected 1652 crore. kindly update this information. (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017[edit]


please change Dangal collection ₹1,823 crore (US$280 million)[8] to ₹1,870 crore (US$281 million). Here is the source of this- Ferdouse Shihab (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Sources[edit]

The admins says that they need a reliable sources.The Source used for the malayalam movie Pulimurugan is catch news.How is it reliable.It is not like any news channels or indian express.How is it possible to use it.Please clarify for what reason it is used.Who is the editor in that.What is his qualfication.Muhammed.suhail (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammed.suhail: A good place to ask this sort of question is at the Indian Cinema Task Force talk page, particularly if you wish to contest its use. That said, from what I understand, Catch News is owned by Rajasthan Patrika and was founded by Shoma Chaudhury, who was fired after the site had been established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2017[edit]

Please include telugu movie Katamarayudu, 150cr+. Rajupowerstar (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Collection Updated for Baahubali 2[edit]

All source and news channel are saying baahubali cant cross 1700Cr and someone just updated it as 1700 Indian Express(1684) :- Koimoi(Komal Nahta's) (1676Cr as two day old):- :-

Ramesh Bala tweet (1684 Cr) :

  1. Baahubali2 's 7 Weeks - Total WW BO:
  2. India:

Nett : ₹ 1,066 Cr Gross : ₹ 1,373.5 Cr Overseas: Gross : ₹ 310.5 Cr Total: ₹ 1,684 Crs Sanjan Kumar Patel 15:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjanind (talkcontribs)

I personally feel that Rob Cain is a bit biased towards Baahubali and shouldnt be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
1) How does this comment relate to the one you are responding to? Doesn't Rob Cain work for Forbes? I don't see any Forbes links in this thread. 2) You've provided an unsubstantiated opinion that Cain is biased. Why do we care? What's the context? What is your evidence of bias? Where's your evidence that the contrary viewpoint should be considered instead? Wikipedia's not a democracy, so simply voting to disregard his articles isn't going to result in anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2017[edit]

Dangal movie's Box office collections are wrong displayed. World has no evidence to verify the same. it is not more than 700-800cr. Loveshk.10 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Loveshk.10: Except that reliable sources disagree with you, and they are experts, whereas you are not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2017[edit]

Dangal has surpassed 2000Cr worldwide. Please change this in the appropriate columns. This achievement is listed in the Forbes article mentioned below: Dangal also becomes the first Indian film to garner 2000Cr worldwide. Please add this description in the Introduction. (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Please update earnings of dangal as Forbes has released source it has grossed 2000cr *🦂😎 Nabeelgm 😎🦂(Talk)•°Nabeel Gm 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Nabeel Gm 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nabeelgm: Posting an edit request without providing a specific reference is a waste of your time and of other editors' time. In this case, the request was already made in the comment above yours, with a reference, so your request is superfluous as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

07/04/2017: Please update Dangal collections as 1864cr. kiranprasad2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranprasad2001 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2017[edit]

add THUPPAKKI tamil list [1] RajaRajaCholan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Not done: The data originates from a primary source, meaning that there is an inherent conflict of interest with blindly reporting a distributor's data. When secondary sources confirm the data independently, that's ideal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Pk's gross?[edit]

In its Wikipedia page it says that it have grossed 832crs and here it says it has grossed 794 crs plz fix it JV Tuber (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@JV Tuber: It's been fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for film by year section?[edit]

What is the source for highest grossing film by year section, it all seems self-made up figures. Also the list only includes data of Bollywood not other industries, what is the source for Highest grossing films by inflation adjustment? SoniaKovind (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Maestro2016, since you appear to be making a lot of edits in this area, the above question is mostly directed at you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
As we've discussed on my talk page, the adjusted domestic gross figures for several films from the '60s and '70s are based on this source: Top 50 Film of Last 50 Years, Box Office India, 3 November 2011. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb On his talk page, Maestro2016 and I discussed about the list and its source and it was clear that the list is a hypothetical list which uses gold standard for ticket prices. The publisher of the source himself calls it only an academic exercise and not an actual list of adjusted gross, so it can not be the basis of the list on the page. The list on the page should be removed. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote on my talk page: Then you've clearly misunderstand what the author is saying. The author is arguing that the gold standard is a more reliable measure of a currency's worth than the government's official inflation rate, which he argues is "ridden with weaknesses" and "subject to subsequent revisions." Maestro2016 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No, he is only suggesting, as in "what if" meaning what if we take the gold price as basis. Gold prices are not stable, in 2010 gold prices shot up by 30% but have remained stagnant since 2012, does that mean a film's revenue will automatically shoot up by 30% in fiscal year 2009-2010? And will not change at all in last 5 years?
Even if its an "argument" according to your interpretation, its his argument against other's argument, that does not make it true. Even gold standard pricing is "ridden with weaknesses" and "subject to subsequent revisions." SoniaKovind (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@SoniaKovind: This all seems very complicated for my little brain. Why can't we just use one of our internal Inflation templates, like {{Inflation}} or {{INRConvert}}? Also, are we getting too serious about a subject (Indian film financials) that is mostly just based on guesses anyway? Guesswork + corrupt system ≠ reliable data. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: LOL, I agree, their is no standard box office measurement system in India, especially for inflation adjusted gross. I was asking Maestro2016 to not add this list based on a dubious source and was hoping he would remove it after discussion. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Also as you have shown that is not a reliable source, this list should certainly be removed. SoniaKovind (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Maestro2016, I'm not aware of being widely considered a reliable source here. I'm aware that there are two BoxOfficeIndias, .com and I also know that .com is used about 17x more frequently at the English Wikipedia than is, and when I do a search of a site like The Hindu for "", I see more hits for the .com site. My point being: I don't get the sense that is widely considered reliable here. Also I've seen some instances, like their treatment of MSG-2's figures that seemed like they were merely parroting what the producers told them. There's been some inconclusive discussion about it here and here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying has no connection to From what I gather, looking through those discussions, the version is a professional trade magazine separate from the .com website, with some users arguing the former is more reliable and some users arguing the latter is more reliable. Either way, this is getting pretty confusing. We might need some input from other users, to get some kind of consensus here. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted movie figures are always a slippery slope. I see that this is a worked upon list and I appreciate the tenacity. However this in no way an encyclopedic list as it relies on a lot of assumptions.

  • The assumption that is the same as I tried checking, and nothing came up to suggest the same. WP:ICTFFAQ (=>) says that there exists a which is different from, the latter being the site we consider as reliable.
  • The use of gold standard is probably without precedent. As discussed above gold's prices cannot be considered as the harbinger of inflation, as inflation is much more complicated than that.
  • The overseas gross figures are not proper as well. Gunga Jamuna, Disco Dancer, Bobby uses figures from the Soviet Union while Sholay and Mother India does not have figures in the overseas gross figures. Assuming that Gunga Jamuna, Disco Dancer and Bobby did indeed gross so much in Soviet Union, there exists the possibility that it could have grossed similarly high figures in a lot of other nations, which is not being accounted for currently. Also the fact that Sholay's figures does not exist in the RBTH reference used is providing a misleading idea about the list, as Sholay is usually considered as the highest grossing movie ever.

I therefore will be removing the list till a consensus is established about all the above problems. Providing a misleading list when the page is attracting high traffic is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. Best. Jupitus Smart 08:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Also revert 'Highest-grossing films by year' list before recent edits, it uses same misleading source and numbers. SoniaKovind (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If we shouldn't use, then what do you think about Cyphoidbomb's alternative suggestion of using the {{Inflation}} or {{INRConvert}} templates? Regarding the Soviet Union, the list of top 50 Indian films in the USSR compiled by Sergey Kudryavtsev (film critic) doesn't include popular domestic grossers like Sholay, Mughal-e-Azam, or Mother India (for whatever reasons, maybe because they may not have been released there), hence the absence of overseas gross for these films. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: Also, why is there a different format in Highest-grossing films by year section, with writer's name instead of studio/producer's name? All other sections on the page use studio/producer's name not writer's on the list, as a film's revenue are subject of studio/production house, not writers. SoniaKovind (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: Using the collections in USSR as the Worldwide collection is not acceptable. Ganga Jumna may have grossed X crores in Soviet Union. Sholay may not have grossed anything in USSR but may have grossed a much higher value than X in say USA. So listing Ganga Jumna above Sholay will give off the idea that it was the bigger hit, when it may have not been so. As for INRConvert - I am not sure about that. You are better of asking Cyphoidbomb about the feasibility of using it. However when the base value is contested, I don't see why changing it to inflation adjusted figures would help. Regards. Jupitus Smart 11:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@SoniaKovind: asked me to revert the yearly highest grossers edit - on my talk page. I don't intend to do that unless a better consensus emerges about that. I would also request her to discuss the same here where everybody can chip in. Jupitus Smart 12:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I requested to revert 'Highest-grossing films by year' list before recent edits, as it uses the same misleading source and numbers, just like the other list that was removed. SoniaKovind (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You probably have not understood @SoniaKovind:. I will not be reverting that until a better consensus about reverting emerges. The reason for reverting the inflation adjusted figures were mentioned by me above. That does not hold for highest grossing movies by year. So I cannot randomly revert. You are much better off talking to Maestro2016 and convincing him about your points. Jupitus Smart 12:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: I pinged him earlier, he hasn't replied on the page. The reason for reverting the 'Highest-grossing films by year' section is also the same as he has used the same figures and source for this section as in 'inflation adjusted figures' section, which you reverted, how are the same numbers misleading in one section but not in other? Please look into it. The figures and source. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As Cyphoidbomb suggested above, the data from the source could be replaced with data from the {{Inflation}} or {{INRConvert}} templates. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The Western box office market (North America, Western Europe) for Indian films didn't come into existence until the 1990s, when Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge opened up the NRI market. Prior to that, the overseas market was mainly limited to Asia and Eastern Europe, of which we only have data available for the USSR. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@SoniaKovind: We have an administrator involved in this discussion, so if he does not reply to you for long, I believe the admin would do the needful. As for the quick revert in one section and the lets discuss this out in another section - The highest grossing movies per year is accepted to be broken as mentioned in the cleanup tag above. So if he can prove that a movie with a higher gross existed in a particular year (which he has probably done, though not in the most convincing manner), he is free to replace the old movie. However when it is a whole list which is wrong as in the inflation adjusted figures list - that is not acceptable - as it becomes entirely WP:OR. I understand this is not the most convincing answer, but that is what I believe. So I myself will not be reverting it, though somebody else is free to do so. Jupitus Smart 13:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: Why no reply on this one? Why is there a different format in Highest-grossing films by year section, with writer's name instead of studio/producer's name? All other sections on the page use studio/producer's name not writer's on the list, as a film's revenue are subject of studio/production house, not writers. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter whether or not the director/writer/producer/studio/actors are listed? Maestro2016 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, why did you come up with you own format? Please follow the established format, which includes director and producer. SoniaKovind (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the yearly section: removed all references to, replaced gold figures with data from {{Inflation}} templates, and replaced writer format with studio format. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)



The 1864 crore figure for Dangal is absolutely unreliable as a section of the media has only quoted an unnamed spokesperson whose affiliation cannot be verified as the source.

The truth, as revealed by Forbes columnist Rob Cain on twitter, is that reports of such business are based on nett figures for China, which have no place in global box office figures.

I would appreciate it if this issue could be resolved so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Thanks. Factual Proof (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now reverted Dangal back to 2000 crore. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Since you have reverted back to the 1864 number, could you maybe address the issues raised by Factual Proof here? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: Oops, my bad. I didn't notice this. I have reverted it back to 2000. In doing so, I had to revert your recent edits (Sorry about that).  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's okay. I've now restored those intermediate edits. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Sptavva7 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Mungarumale collected ₹75 crore[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tevar shaa. I wanted to let you know that According to reports at that time, #Mungarumale was the first film to touch ₹50 crore and even within 300 days See this.[1] And ran for 1 year continuously in PVR with packed houses. And went on to run over 865 days and raked over ₹75 crore in its life time in #Karnataka. [2][3]

Actually the the Mungarumale collection is not announced by any primary sources like producer/actor/director/distributors, it is by critic, named C.H. Prahlada Rao, who told to "DNA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevar shaa (talkcontribs)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2017[edit]

Remove as green highlights on Dangal as it is not showing in international cinemas anymore, including China Helperedits (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dangal's Box office collection[edit]

A spokesperson from the team of Dangal has said Dangal has made a worldwide gross of 1864 crores and the news that it has crossed 2000 crores is absolutely fake. Sptavva7 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says this is the case. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Sptavva7 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2008 Highest Grosser[edit]

How is Ghajini the highest grosser of 2008? It has grossed ₹ 194.58 crores.

The Tamil movie Dasavathaaram should be the highest grossing movie os 2008. It has grossed ₹ 200 crores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talkcontribs) 07:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ghajini crossed 200 crore worldwide, according to the following source: Nikhat Kazmi. "The Cast And Crew of Ghajini Celebrate The Film's 200 Crores Collections Worldwide". Bollywood Hungama. Retrieved 12 January 2009.  Maestro2016 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if both the movies grossed 200 crores, shouldn't they both be cited? Wadelison (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Wadelison

Change Srimanthudu collections[edit]

It is impossible for the Telugu movie Srimanthudu to gross 200 crores. It has actually grossed 144.45 crores. Look at the following links for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talkcontribs) 08:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2017[edit]

Baahubali 2 has collected 2000 crores already. The page was not updated. Check the Baahubali 2 wikipedia page where you can see the proof with official links from magazines and newspapers. Please update it. It should be ranked no.1 with Dangal in the list of Highest grossing Indian films Freewebstennis (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2017[edit] (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

| 3.The Great Father | style="background:#b6fcb6;"| 2017 | style="background:#b6fcb6;"| Haneef Adeni | style="background:#b6fcb6;"| August Cinema | style="background:#b6fcb6;"| 50 crore (US$7.8 million) | style="background:#b6fcb6;"| [1]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 16:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Dangal collections are fake.[edit]

The spokesperson of the Dangal team has clarified that Dangal hasn't touched 2000 crore rupees gross. In fact, it has only made 1864 crore rupees gross. Sptavva7 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Sptavva7 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Update Bahubali 2 Box office / fake dangal collection[edit]

Bahubali 2 figure is not updated. [1] Cooltunir (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooltunir (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)== Dangal controversy ==

dangals figure may not be accurate, reports that aamir khan buying tickets for his own movie.



  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^